Ghada Elkhawaga

Ghada Elkhawaga, Mervat Abuelkheir, Manfred Reichert

Predictive Process Monitoring (PPM) has been integrated into process mining tools as a value-adding task. PPM provides useful predictions on the further execution of the running business processes. To this end, machine learning-based techniques are widely employed in the context of PPM. In order to gain stakeholders trust and advocacy of PPM predictions, eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods are employed in order to compensate for the lack of transparency of most efficient predictive models. Even when employed under the same settings regarding data, preprocessing techniques, and ML models, explanations generated by multiple XAI methods differ profoundly. A comparison is missing to distinguish XAI characteristics or underlying conditions that are deterministic to an explanation. To address this gap, we provide a framework to enable studying the effect of different PPM-related settings and ML model-related choices on characteristics and expressiveness of resulting explanations. In addition, we compare how different explainability methods characteristics can shape resulting explanations and enable reflecting underlying model reasoning process

Ghada Elkhawaga, Mervat Abuelkheir, Manfred Reichert

Predictive business process monitoring (PPM) has been around for several years as a use case of process mining. PPM enables foreseeing the future of a business process through predicting relevant information about how a running process instance might end, related performance indicators, and other predictable aspects. A big share of PPM approaches adopts a Machine Learning (ML) technique to address a prediction task, especially non-process-aware PPM approaches. Consequently, PPM inherits the challenges faced by ML approaches. One of these challenges concerns the need to gain user trust in the predictions generated. The field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) addresses this issue. However, the choices made, and the techniques employed in a PPM task, in addition to ML model characteristics, influence resulting explanations. A comparison of the influence of different settings on the generated explanations is missing. To address this gap, we investigate the effect of different PPM settings on resulting data fed into an ML model and consequently to a XAI method. We study how differences in resulting explanations may indicate several issues in underlying data. We construct a framework for our experiments including different settings at each stage of PPM with XAI integrated as a fundamental part. Our experiments reveal several inconsistencies, as well as agreements, between data characteristics (and hence expectations about these data), important data used by the ML model as a result of querying it, and explanations of predictions of the investigated ML model.

Burkhard Hoppenstedt, Manfred Reichert, Ghada El-Khawaga et al.

In the context of Industry 4.0, the knowledge extraction from sensor information plays an important role. Often, information gathered from sensor values reveals meaningful insights for production levels, such as anomalies or machine states. In our use case, we identify production phases through the inspection of sensor values with the help of convolutional neural networks. The data set stems from a tempering furnace used for metal heat treating. Our supervised learning approach unveils a promising accuracy for the chosen neural network that was used for the detection of production phases. We consider solutions like shown in this work as salient pillars in the field of predictive maintenance.